The following is a partial/selected dialogue which took place during Canada’s House of Commons Question Period on Bill C-24 – Canada’s New Citizenship Bill:

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):Mr. Speaker, now yesterday as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration took evasive action after being asked about the constitutionality of his immigration bill. While he refused to answer the question, but he did manage to make an unrelated reference to the “disgraced ideological former lawyer of the Khadr family”.So, can the minister tell us how his latest smear job is even remotely relevant to the constitutionality of Bill C-24?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that we were given a strong mandate as a government to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship, and that citizenship is based on allegiance.The Liberals had 13 years to try and sort these issues with backlogs. New Democrats have not had the chance, and if all goes well, they will never have it, but Canadians think it is absolutely legitimate for dual nationals who have committed acts of treason, of terrorism, of espionage to forfeit their Canadian citizenship.That is a violation of—

Mr. Andrew Cash (Davenport, NDP):Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this bill proposes new powers to deport a Canadian-born citizen to a country to which they have no connection to. This is nonsensical, and it is most likely unconstitutional.The hon. member knows there is a public outcry and he knows people are asking to compromise, yet he stubbornly steams ahead, ignoring all criticism.So why did the government turn down every single suggestion put forward to try to fix this bill?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the member opposite is lost in the thicket of his own ideology. There is absolutely no new provision in this bill to deport or to strip the citizenship of Canadian citizens who have only one nationality.It is offensive for the members opposite to be drawing some false distinction between who are naturalized Canadians and those who are Canadian born. The law applies to them equally, and we will continue to take our advice from lawyers who know the difference between a removal and a revocation, which the lawyer that he mentioned clearly does not.

Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even know what to say to salvage his credibility.A number of experts, including the Canadian Bar Association, believe that the citizenship bill is unconstitutional. Yesterday, in a CBC interview, the minister dismissed the criticism, saying that Bill C-24 is similar to what is being done in other NATO countries, but what does NATO have to do with a debate on access to Canadian citizenship? It is completely ridiculous.Will our fundamental rights in Canada now depend on the mood of our NATO allies?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):Mr. Speaker, what does NATO have to do with this debate? Our allies and partners think it is important to show allegiance to their system of law and their country.Canadians also think that is important. That is why we have a citizenship bill that will strengthen the value of citizenship and protect us from terrorists and spies.It is high time that the NDP realized that these people exist, that they pose a threat and that we have to take action to counter those threats.

Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP):Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the minister had to apologize to an immigration consultant whose name he unfairly dragged through the mud. The minister also attacked the Canadian Bar Association for its position on Bill C-24, and yesterday, he went after Toronto constitutional expert Rocco Galati, who was another victim of the minister’s moods.Why is the minister ignoring or attacking everyone who does not agree with him? Does he not realize that this attitude, which is typical of the Conservatives, is completely ridiculous and inappropriate?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):Mr. Speaker, the real question is how the NDP can justify defending terrorism and spying as a cornerstone of our citizenship. How can the NDP say that these people should keep their citizenship, even if they are dual citizens? We will not accept that.Canadians have been clear in this regard, and we do not think that the few lawyers who expressed an opinion on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association speak for the lawyers of this country. Most Canadians agree that we must protect the value of Canadian citizenship and allegiance to the Crown and this country.———————————————————————–Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s, Lib.):Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled to learn that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is threatening to unilaterally strip Canadian citizenship from people born here in Canada.Criminals in Canada are punished according to our law. This arbitrary change to dual citizenship cuts to the absolute core of what it means to be Canadian. How can the minister justify this abuse of power that tramples on the rights of Canadians, even those born here in Canada?

Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts to the absolute heart of the shortcomings of the 1977 Citizenship Act, brought in by Prime Minister Trudeau, which actually cheapened Canadian citizenship, opened it to abuse, and put to one side the whole question of allegiance and loyalty to this country.The Liberals had 13 years to clean up this mess. They did nothing to stop citizenship of convenience. They did nothing to protect us from traitors.

The Government’s proposed citizenship bill is ringing alarm bells for the Canadian Bar Association, which feels that some of the more controversial measures included in the bill could be unconstitutional, thereby contradicting the government’s own evaluation of the bill.

In February, the Government had proposed some drastic changes to the Citizenship Act by introducing Bill C-24. However, three contentious measures have earned it the ire of the Canadian Bar Association, which submitted a 30-page response to the House’s citizenship and immigration committee recently.

While the bar association welcomed some of the new measures proposed in Bill C-24 (such as granting citizenship to “lost Canadians”), the three parts that it wants the Government to amend or scrap altogether concern:

The new eligibility requirements for becoming a citizen

The requirement that wants prospective citizens to show an intent of residing in Canada and,

Expansion of the grounds for the revocation of citizenship

Under the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act, the Government would have the authority to strip dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship, if the individuals were “members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada”. In addition, the Government could also revoke the citizenship of those individuals, who have been “convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received”.

The current Citizenship Act only authorises the Government to revoke naturalised Canadians of their citizenship, if the individuals obtained their citizenship via fraudulent means. In addition, such individuals would have the right to attend a full hearing before a judge of the Federal Court.

However, according to provisions made in Bill C-24, the Government could eliminate the right to a hearing in most cases, but not in all the cases. For instance, the immigration minister has the authority to make a decision without needing to conduct a formal hearing.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander appeared before the citizenship and immigration committee and informed the MPs that all the proposals listed in Bill C-24 are constitutionally sound. However, this had no effect on the bar association, which urged the Government to modify Bill C-24 by considering their 20 recommendations that included:

Deleting the requirement that prospective citizens would need to declare their intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship

Amending the rigorous residency requirements needed for becoming a citizen

Removing the requirement that applicants would need to be present for 183 days during four of the six years before applying for citizenship

Scrapping the requirement that applicants would need to submit their tax returns for four of the six years before applying for citizenship and,

Removing the requirement that applicants would need to provide knowledge tests in one of the two official languages

A surprising new internal government report has found that those immigrants who have been in Canada longest are the ones most likely to fail the citizenship test.

The citizenship test is one of the last steps completed by immigrants wishing to obtain full citizenship rights as a Canadian, including the ability to carry a Canadian passport and to vote. The citizenship test was redesigned in 2012 to promote newcomers’ awareness of Canadian history, values and culture.

In recent years, the government has made reforms not only to the test, but also other citizenship regulations in an attempt to strengthen loyalty to Canada and promote successful integration. In addition to the revamped test, the government’s most recent proposed changes include raising residency requirements so that immigrants must wait longer before applying for citizenship.

However, the findings of the departmental report are troubling this idea in suggesting that length of time living in Canada does not correlate to a better grasp of Canadian history and values – at least as exhibited in standardized tests.

This has led some immigrant advocates to question what the government understands about what it means to be Canadian. Is there really a way to test newcomers on how Canadian they are?

Since the redesigned test was introduced, more immigrants are failing the exam overall. People who have been in the country longer are less likely to write the test, and therefore less likely to pass. New arrivals, generally, are more motivated to gain full citizenship and are therefore more likely to take the test and to do well on it.

Applicants from South Korea and China were found most likely to do well on the test. Those taking the test in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were also most likely to do well.

Failing the citizenship test is the top reason for rejection of citizenship applications, followed by failure to prove language proficiency, and not meeting the residency requirements.

More critics are expressing concern over the government’s proposed reforms to citizenship laws, saying it creates a two-tiered system.

Young educated newcomers are some of the most sought-after immigrants not only in Canada, but also throughout the global marketplace. However, some critics say that the new regulations could alienate this highly desirable population by lengthening the residency process and creating more second-tiered citizens in the country.

“We have formed ties, socialized, worked and paid taxes in Canada,” argues Alex Linkov, a 35 year-old design engineer from Isreal who applied for immigration under the Canadian Experience Class. “At workplaces, hiring priorities are given to citizens. Without voting rights, you can’t change things in your community and you become an underclass.”

Linkov has already received over 3,200 signatures on his online petition opposing the new citizenship reforms. Others like him, who come to Canada on a temporary work visa, will no longer be able to count that time as part of their required residency, which is itself being lengthened in a move the government says will “deepen attachment” to Canada.

In recent years, however, immigration policies have encouraged applicants to come to Canada first and then obtain their permanent residency status before obtaining citizenship. The Canadian Experience Class of immigration, as well as Provincial Nominee Programs and the Post-Graduate Work Program have all been designed with this system in mind. Additionally, the rising numbers of temporary foreign workers have been publicly justified by both employers and government as one way to attract the labour that Canada will need long-term.

Critics say that the new changes will not only discourage newcomers, but are also affecting Canada’s trustworthiness and international reputation. Increasing their time as “underclass” makes immigrants feel less protected and secure in choosing Canada.

There has been much talk in the news of the government’s proposed reforms to Canada’s citizenship rules and procedures, but it is important for newcomers and prospective newcomers to understand exactly what these changes mean.

Firstly, newcomers will have to wait at least four years before applying, instead of three. The proof of residency requirements will be more stringent and applicants will be questioned on their intent to reside in Canada in the future. Additionally, immigrants will need to file their taxes in Canada for four out of the first six years of their residency.

The government will have the power to revoke citizenship from any immigrant convicted of terrorism, spying or treason. There will be harsher penalties for anyone convicted of citizenship fraud. The new rules will also grant Canada’s Immigration Minister, currently Chris Alexander, the power to unilaterally grant and revoke citizenships on a case-by-case basis.

Newcomers who enlist in Canada’s armed forces will be eligible for fast-tracking of their application and new rules will help to grant status to thousands of so-called “Lost Canadians” who’ve lived in Canada for years but, due to legal loopholes, have been unable to gain citizenship.

The age range for those needing to prove their language abilities is widening from 18 to 54 to 14 to 64. There will also be more regulations in place governing citizenship consulting.

Lastly, the government aims to streamline the process, which currently takes about two-to-three years. They hope that new rules, including switching out citizenship judges with citizenship officers, will help cut waiting times down to a year and reduce the current 320,000 application backlog.

Though experts are praising many of the changes, critics are pointing to some of the smaller, “illogical” moves that have been slipped into the reform package.

Among the changes being hailed by observers is a new language requirement for citizenship applicants, widening the required ages from 18 to 54, to 14 to 64, for those needing to demonstrate capabilities in one of Canada’s two official languages.

One of the more controversial reforms is an increase to residency requirements, which, some argue, could discourage sought-after skilled workers who travel frequently for work in today’s global marketplace.

Additionally, critics are concerned over a citizenship amendment which will allow the government to strip citizenship from those convicted of terrorism, spying or treason. Immigrant rights’ advocates are concerned over this new power, saying that the government should never be able to strip citizenship for reasons other than fraud, as it creates a two-tiered system.

Citizenship reform has been publicly touted as one of this government’s top priorities.

Critics are expressing concern over reforms to Canada’s citizenship laws, saying that the changes will both make it harder for newcomers to gain their citizenship status, as well as devalue the citizenship of Canadians living abroad.

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act was introduced by the Conservative government to Parliament early this year, and seeks to extend the required times between landing as an immigrant and being eligible for citizenship.

While representatives from the government, including Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, tout the changes as a way to improve the citizenship system and ensure that “people who are becoming citizens have really lived here,” critics are concerned that the changes will discourage immigrants from seeking that status and, contrarily to the government’s apparent aims, weaken their attachment and loyalty to Canada.

Landed immigrants are able to access Canada’s social services, but are unable to vote and not taxed at the same rate – two factors that could be seen to weaken both their attachment to Canada, as well as Canada’s investment in them. In the new global marketplace, a sense of loyalty to one’s adopted country is imperative for skilled workers to plant long-term roots, argue economics professor Don Devoretz and Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada president and CEO Yuen Pau Woo in a recent piece for the Toronto Star.

Devoretz and Woo say that policies built on a sense of spite – the idea that some newcomers are taking Canadian citizenship for granted – may appease some here at home, but could dissuade the skilled workers that Canadian immigration policies have specifically been targeting. This is particularly true of young, educated workers who are most likely to work abroad for extended periods of time.

The answer, they say, is not to make it harder for them to obtain citizenship, but instead to limit access to Canada’s social programs and benefits for those who choose to live outside of the country. An immigration policy that is designed to attract Canada’s high-skilled workers should also be concerned with retaining them in the long run.